Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have been trying to think up the ultimate way to represent a 40k campaign that makes the best use of what we have available as tabletop gamers in general, and I feel I can use some help. For example, I would love to just have a planetary 'map' of sorts that illustrates what sorts of forces are where, and you can't generally just create troops (i.e. Astartes) out of thin air and so you have to distribute your forces accordingly etc. Basically I'd love to represent the large scale of a planetary war in 40k as realistically as possible. Maybe even include supply lines somehow.

How to represent this in a game of 40k, I think, would be that you can only ever have what's available to you in a battle if you actually have the model, and if you've allocated more than you actually have available to use, then you have to let the other forces of yours enter the battlefield as said units you actually physically have have died, then they just re-deploy (old 'swarm' rule iirc), or just use stand ins. Of course this could result in some long battles but objectives could help cut the time down.

I have so many swirling thoughts about this but I snagged the old 40k planetary empires set a long time ago and would LOVE to put it to some good use some day. If you build it they will come,I'm hoping.

Thoughts? Does anyone else have any such ideas, or know of good references/links to such campaigns? Google has failed me in this so far, so I put my faith in the dakka.

EDIT: I wrote this hastily on my phone at work if that helps explain the haphazard design of this post.

I've always wanted to do a campaign using the board game "Risk" as a base. Each Risk "army" would equal 500 points and the players would have the option of either playing a game when attacking another player's province or letting the dice decide as per a normal game of risk. Obviously the defenders would be at a disadvantage as they would only be able to field 1,000 points if the rules for Risk were adhered to but they could have a free fortification or two to make up for it.

You could literally play 40k risk but with battles instead of rolling 3 dice vs 2 dice (though you would still do something similar in a battle ). Each Risk soldier could be worth 100 points, then you play the game as if it were risk i.e. rienforcements, movement of units, invading lands, repositioning units, etc.
When you play the battle, you count up the number of points the winning player has left after the battle rounding up/down and then they place that many soldiers into the territory they just won.

Just an idea, don't think I'd have the patience for it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 edbradders wrote:
I've always wanted to do a campaign using the board game "Risk" as a base. Each Risk "army" would equal 500 points and the players would have the option of either playing a game when attacking another player's province or letting the dice decide as per a normal game of risk. Obviously the defenders would be at a disadvantage as they would only be able to field 1,000 points if the rules for Risk were adhered to but they could have a free fortification or two to make up for it.

Beat me to it.

I've thought on this topic quite a bit and have even run a few campaigns of my own along these lines using honebrew systems. The only real problem I have discovered is keeping players interested. If you are playing a game like this, it will take a really long time to play and the time will become exponentially longer the more players you have. If the game is just going to be you and 1 other player & you're both really into the idea then no matter what sort of rules you come up with will keep you entertained. But if your goal is to present a campaign system that has universal appeal, the process is a lot more difficult.

Most of the issues revolve around the fact that 40k is designed as a skirmish game and not as a grand invasion game. Real life battles happen over miles (kilometers) of territory and the average 40k 6' by 4' table is only representative of a few city blocks (like literally 2). Perhaps you could resolve the issue of "not having enough models" by breaking each grand battle down into a series of linked skirmishes. Each game representing a key element or decisive moment in the overarching plot of the whole battle. You could play out each scenario individually and then tally up the overall number of wins and losses on both sides to determine who won the battle.

I have found that supply lines and interdiction is probably the most boring part of the whole process and would recommend assigning the efficiency of such things a die roll. Like, space marines have a supply line of 2+ and orks have an interdiction of 6+. If the interdiction works, it worsens the opponent's supply line by 1 for this turn. Meaning space marines would then be 3+. Then, when players roll supply line, they have to withhold 1 unit from the battle for each number they failed their roll by.

For a campaign of this scale, I would recommend the following:
1) study real world military invasions (Operation Barbarosa, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Overlord, Operation Desert Storm, etc.) to try to get a sense of what the key battles were
2) break down your own campaign into 3-5 overarching battles and know what the objectives (of the forces involved) are. Are they there to secure a city, capture government officials, decimate enemy forces, cripple air defense capability, knock out communications, secure an orbital array, establish a beachhead, etc?
3) playtest your ideas with 2 or more players who are not you. Run the game with an unbiased eye. If you participate as a player in your own creation, you will run the risk of wanting to tweak the game to favor your own win. This is inevitable, but extremely poor form. Your players will lose interest in your pet project.

I hope some of this helps. I'm currently writing a massive 40k campaign and posting it to these very forums. I hope it gives you inspiration.

I ran a campaign last year for 6 players (2 factions of three evolving into three factions of two) where fights took place on two planets with a space hulk randomly warping back and forth. The campaign required a mediator (me) but allowed for several layers of strategy beyond just a linear battle tree. Clues were given and points on the maps approximated enemy concentrations (orks & tyranids, run by me.)

The players made their moves and each week a game turn was resolved. Items could be be purchased of a strategic nature (surveillance satellites, interdiction, etc.) and a set number of points were given out for each faction. It cost points for force sizes and to move them.

Anyway, it was a lot of fun and the players enjoyed emailing smack to the group as well as advancing on the planet surfaces. Terrain features were known but plenty of mysteries needed to be learned. Encampments could be established to aid a faction but they were also subject to enemy attack. Eventually the faction that pursued the objectives most diligently won out.

The sky is the limit when it comes to campaign potential...however that's almost always limited heavily by people's enthusiasm, dedication to the campaign, and the campaign being able to survive contact with human adult schedules/cock ups.

This is definitely some valued input - I intend to go through that thread of yours btw, Warboss. Ty for that.

Some thoughts I have in regards to this now:

-Risk is a fantastic sort of idea; I had actually thought of using it as an example in my topic, but I didn't want to pigeon hole my idea. The thing is that Risk also depends on getting new troops, which I believe might realistically not be possible for many factions. But then again, perhaps that could be based on supply lines/reinforcements, so Risk COULD be a good baseline example

-I seem to recall a game or two in the past (Star Wars Battlefront 2: Galactic Conquest perhaps) in which your actually putting yourself in the shoes of your character (playing Battlefront 2 in third person instead of hitting 'roll the dice' on the map for example) would *increase* your chances of victory, but perhaps at greater cost. This could be represented by your dedicating yourself/the commander to the fight and giving it your direct oversight, and leaving a relatively lesser chance for dice rolls for rolls that YOU decide to be less important. Do you all agree this may be the best general idea for how to handle such a large scale campaign?

-@mrhappyface: That's a pretty great idea in terms of determining how to figure who/what remains to garrison a zone etc. This could be especially interesting if there are named characters that lead any particular attacking or defending force that are in command of it; these commanders could gain XP and provide benefits to the army so long as they're alive, and then a lesser experienced commander comes into play. (Not you/the general/supreme commander, but sub-commanders)

-In terms of keeping players interested, as far as I'm concerned as long as you incite players with experience as per the above, and then say that a commander has gone 'missing', then you can always have players drop in and out and have a surviving campaign. As long as there's some map on the wall with pins in it that aren't disrupted, boom. There you go! All of which can be done far more nicely done than in most any video game in existence. This is the sort of reason why I'm so interested in this, because in a number of ways, modern video games are inferior for this!

-Warboss, the linked skirmish games/campaign games are definitely what GW has played into for many years in their rulebooks, and I've always wanted to play such a game. However, in a risk-sort of scenario, the possibilities would and should be far more wide open. Instead of just engaging in a battle and seeing where it goes, I would say step back one step further and decide *where* and *when* and for *what* that battle engages in. Think Battlefleet Gothic: Armada the video game - each territory gives a benefit for the rest of your army/world. Going to a refinery and taking it over should have a far different effect than overtaking a Mechanicus forge, etc. Thus the appeal of a more free 'choice' instead of pre-determined, small sets of branching outcomes. Nonetheless all the objectives etc that you describe would be perfect - perhaps some you know about before heading into a territory, perhaps some you'd learn about at the last second after you declare you're attacking that zone and then determine what you need to do

-@warboss also: I love the simplifying of supply lines idea, and I think that would be best with the dice roll system you would describe. I wouldn't want it to bog anything down!

-amanita - I am fascinated by what you mentioned about giving clues/mysteries in the context you gave! Can you please give as many juicy details/examples of that as you could?

I don't know about planetary empires, but the old Mighty Empires was basically a campaign system for WFB. You had an empire and an economy and you had to spend part of your income on troops. Each gold piece bought 500 points and you could split you total points between banners. When opposing banners met you fought a WFB game using the relevant points in each banner. As you took casualties your banners lost points.

You could do something similar for 40k. You could even go further by assignING units to each mobile battlegroup. When opposing forces meet the premade lists engage. Players could keep the lists secret until the first time they engage. As 40k games see pretty brutal in casualties you could roll a dice at the end of the game to determine if something is actually destroyed, or just put out of action.

Speaking of Risk Pieces = Points, it would be interesting to have blocks of points for HS, blocks for Troops, etc. That way, you would only be able to have as many points of HS and Troops etc as you have placed on a province. Losing a particular amount of HS points in a battle would remove a HS counter, meaning that your forces would be less able to field HS.